[Premium-Rx] Not even close..

[Barry Hauser]

Herschel wrote:

>Webster's  dictionary sez   " PREMIUM "    exceptionally quality,
RF-550  with a >little help possibly so..   a sum over or above a price
regularly paid.. RF-550 I don't >think so..  A high value , or a value in
excess of something.. RF-550 performance or >operating features are sorely
lacking..

Unfortunately "Premium" is one of those words that can mean almost anything
and was probably chosen for lack of a better term.  It has been widely used
in advertising and product ID.  For example -- what do they mean by "Premium
Saltines" -- heck, it's a cracker with salt on it, right?  A premium can
also refer to a cheap sales incentive.  Ironically, there have been many
"premium radios" in the history of magazine subscription sales, as well as
calculators, mugs, tote bags, etc., not to mention those things in Cracker
Jack boxes.  So "premium" can apply to something cheap or free, not to
mention those payments you make to the insurance company.  Unfortunately
"premium" is not a "premium" word and doubtful if the dictionary is of much
help.

>I have a very decent Harris collection of receivers, xmitters and xcivers
.. but it has >never even come close that any RF-550 would follow me home
and endear a >operating place at this location..

I don't know enough about this one vs. the others to know why you say this.
A number of other listmembers apparently disagree.  I'm still fiddling
around with this RF-550.  I can already see some pro's and con's.  I like a
receiver with a good assortment of bandwidths for maximizing AM
fidelity/readability according to conditions.  This thing  seems to provide
a choice of 6khz, too narrow and too wide. It was never tops on my buy list
due to the decadic tuning, -- I have others like R-1051's, GRC-106, and an
R-1490. However, I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that the next
significant digit increments after you hit 999, etc. and this one has the
"fast" button.

>I don't think they are RARE, the value is well below what we typically see
or expect >to pay for PREMIUM receivers..

Not a particularly good criterion.  RA6790GM's seem to be much more
plentiful.  Sometimes a highly maintained, upgraded unit fails to pull $750
on auction.  The mechanical build quality is not exceptional.  But they're
good receivers -- I've got two.  If I'm not mistaken, some of the listed
receivers are still in production and while up there in price, are therefore
not exactly rare.

>There is just no way I see this dog making it as a premium receiver.. cost
, availability >or operating performance ,  it's just not there..  I vote
NO!

I dunno - a lot of others seem to disagree.  I don't have enough experience
with this one to say, and if it fell short performance-wise, I wouldn't jump
to any conclusions as it may be due for some maintenance.

>these thoughts are my own, thus what you have paid for them, might be a
>consideration..   mac/mc

Price is probably the poorest indicator.  A five tube catalin radio with a
big chunk out of its side pulled nearly $4,000.  A certain Hallicrafters --
SX-88, I think -- pulls big bucks in the four figures.  It was one of their
better receivers, but not that much better - commands a high price due to
rarity, maybe only 500 built.  My Debeg 2000 is rare -- but not worth a
whole heck of a lot.

Original government cost?  Those numbers are way out there and not
particularly relevant.  Maybe someone knows what it would run for a compact,
ruggedized, schrapnel-resistant unit that can run under adverse conditions
and stop a bullet for you?  Like a BC-312.  That's a premium receiver all
right -- from that perspective.

Quality?  That issue is also a function of reliability, service-ability and
"when".  Some 70's and 80's equipment were populated with oodles of tantalum
caps that failed sure as the black beauties in the tube gear of the 50's.
Worse are those with special run IC's or once standard numbers that are
impossible to find.  Ironically, it's the old tube gear that is still more
serviceable and restorable 50 years later.  So, what's the situation now and
what's it likely to be in 5 or 10 years, which is relevant to the
quality/cost consideration?

Availability?  Is scarce a criterion?  It doesn't seem so from the listinfo
page.  Actually, that page doesn't say much.  Is there someplace else on the
site with more detail?

Functionality?  There are some high-end designs that are intentionally
"hobbled" for reliability in actual, original application.  A number of
Navy/maritime receivers, for example, have the mode and bandwidth set by a
single control.  There the original objective was to prevent mistakes
whereby the unit could be set to the correct critical frequency, but the
mode or bandwidth would cause signals to be missed or RTTY or facsimilie to
fail.

In a sense, I agree with you.  Inclusion shouldn't be based purely on voting
(and sentiment) -- it should still fit with a set of criteria to make sense.

A solution might be to create another, companion list for receivers that
don't quite make the cut or are arguable, but tend to be popular with the
the Premium-RX group and very rare units that come up from time to time -
surveillance rx's, countermeasures, propagation systems like the TRQ-35
family.  Chances are, most list members would subscribe to both.  Maybe even
a third one -- Premium/BC -- which is where you'd go if you were wanted some
"premium"-type advice on a BC-348.

Sorry for all the bandwidth -- must have slipped into 20 kb, er, 20 kHz.

Barry